Before our questions get too far out in left field, lets try to remember Constantinople and the Orthodox Christians there survived under Islam more peacefully than expected, especially considering the circumstances at the time.

Before our questions get too far out in left field, lets try to remember Constantinople and the Orthodox Christians there survived under Islam more peacefully than expected, especially considering the circumstances at the time.

That's debatable.

It all depends on how you define "PEACEFUL".

Dhimmitude. My family lived it.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Before our questions get too far out in left field, lets try to remember Constantinople and the Orthodox Christians there survived under Islam more peacefully than expected, especially considering the circumstances at the time.

That's debatable.

It all depends on how you define "PEACEFUL".

I suppose paying jizya is "peaceful".

Logged

“When I have a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.” - Erasmus

"God became man so that man might become a god." ~St. Athanasius the Great

Before our questions get too far out in left field, lets try to remember Constantinople and the Orthodox Christians there survived under Islam more peacefully than expected, especially considering the circumstances at the time.

My paternal grandparents & great grandpaernts were Syrian Orthodox. It always seemed to me that Syrian Christians & Moslems had better relationships since whatever tragedies that Syrian Christians endured were from the Ottomans & hardly ever between Syrians. Present day Syrians have told me that until recently, most Syrians had generally good relations whether their faith might have been. Does this seem to be a fair observation?

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christs!

Folks, can we kindly be a bit more mature? This thread is quickly devolving into a pity party and a stone throwing contest. Have Muslims killed Christians? Yes, duh. Have we killed Muslims? Yes, duh. Here is the real clincher, have Christians fought against and killed Christians? Yes, duh

How about we save those obvious discussions for more pertinent threads, our Muslim brother has been considerate enough to have open and honest discussions here, can't we keep that focus instead of falling into the blame game so much and talking about persecutions? There are a plethora of threads available on this forum to have those discussions, but if we keep that going here inevitably it will begin to get focused towards even the Muslim poster here.

Many times I hear Christians say, "Why don't Muslims speak out against violence or persecution of Christians?" They do. I will flip it, and ask, "How come we Christians can't speak out to other Christians about being myopic in discussions about Islam?"

We know there is a history of violence, persecution, and martyrdom, and we shouldn't disregard these tragedies, but as in all matters, we must always consider the settings, time, and place.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Yeah, I really just wanted to know if there's a difference between the suicide bombers and actual martyrs. I think that many suicide bombers would say, perhaps not entirely without reason, that they are carrying out an extreme act for the defense of their community (to repel invaders or occupiers) This does not square with the Christian understanding of martyrdom (even our military saints like St. George or Abu Seifain are not considered martyrs for having taken up the sword in battles, but for having died at the hands of the authorities for the sake of their faith). So I don't understand the position taken by some Muslims that if someone dies while spilling another's blood, they're a martyr so long as they're doing it for the sake of their faith.

dzheremi, as I said.... the best example in islamic history, is the prophet's grandson Hussein. I encourage you to read more about him.... in fact prominent celebrities, have spoken very positively about him...

Hussein and some members of his group were abused and killed for their faith and not pledging allegiance of loyalty to a violent monarchy. True muslims do not believe in a heretical ruling structure. They were fighting on behalf of the community, to prevent that ideology to take over.

Martyrs become martyrs when the family doesn't bother anyone, try to live in a peaceful way, and be true to their religion..... but they finding themselves in a difficult position, where someone is imposing a law or regulation that is against the religion and there is nowhere to escape to keep the family safe... so the only choice they have is to enter a conflict... and fight for religious freedom.

An example I can give, is like those farmers who fought Stalin's troops, when Stalin wanted to take their farms for the state. Those poor farmers had no choice but to fight for their freedom, and those that died in this fight.... are considered martyrs.

This is the best way I can explain it.

reader pay attention.

those that fight against heretical ruling structure, are they fighting for religious freedom? for instance democracy as a rule of the people , can it be interprated as heresy thereby those who fight it are fighting for religious freedom which can only be realised for them when the supreme law of the land becomes Allah's law?

I agree with you that true muslims do not believe in a heretical ruling structure.and that they will fight on the behalf of the community to prevent the ideology deemed heretical from taking over. they are justified nay obligated to do so.

btw, the sufi flavor makes your explanations much more palatable , I am sure you know.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 02:51:12 PM by Hiwot »

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

I'm not blaming him personally but I do think he minimizes Wahabbism's impact and seeks to put Shia in a better light. NO problem with that but such comparisons remind me too much of RCC/OC arguing. To any outsider, we're both wrong.Besides, my response was to the Constantinople post (#124) anyway.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 03:13:00 PM by Αριστοκλής »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Shiite Muslims quietly establish a foothold in U.S.....That is changing, however, as American Shiites are increasingly establishing their own mosques. According to "The American Mosque 2011," a survey sponsored by several Muslim American organizations, 7 percent of roughly 2,100 mosques in America are Shiite, and most have been built in the last 20 years.

One reason: Shiites have become numerous and financially strong enough to manage the expensive process of buying or building their own mosques. Another factor: the growth in Shiite populations as immigrants flee persecution in Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where Taliban gunmen recently executed at least 22 Shiite bus passengers.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I agree with you that true muslims do not believe in a heretical ruling structure.and that they will fight on the behalf of the community to prevent the ideology deemed heretical from taking over. they are justified nay obligated to do so.

btw, the sufi flavor makes your explanations much more palatable , I am sure you know.

Amen Amen! Excellent point my kind sister.

This is evidenced by the reality that most Somalis utterly reject Al Shabab's push towards Sharia, because in all actuality that degree of Islam is quite foreign to the typical Somali's experience, just like monastic Orthodox is quite foreign to your typical American or European

It is similar with Boko Haram in Nigeria, most Nigerians do NOT want Sharia law, this is why groups like Al Shabab and Boko Haram not only attack Christians and secular government institutions, but common people on the street who equally resist radicalism.

Violence has hijacked the Muslim narrative today. Jihad in Islam up until the 20th century politicization of Islam after the decline of the Ottoman Empire and ascendancy of Euro-American hegemony was a spiritual concept of struggling through fasting and prayer. When the colonial tide was reversed, and many Muslims found themselves colonized rather then the colonizers (as they had been the four hundred years previously), the concept of Jihad and the mujihadeen quite literally radically changed. Prayer became violence. Me personally, I came from a very radicalized background, and it was Orthodox Christianity that taught me directly the value of prayer beads over pistols to solve conflict, let us pray that many Muslims continue to learn the same.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

I agree with you that true muslims do not believe in a heretical ruling structure.and that they will fight on the behalf of the community to prevent the ideology deemed heretical from taking over. they are justified nay obligated to do so.

btw, the sufi flavor makes your explanations much more palatable , I am sure you know.

Amen Amen! Excellent point my kind sister.

This is evidenced by the reality that most Somalis utterly reject Al Shabab's push towards Sharia, because in all actuality that degree of Islam is quite foreign to the typical Somali's experience, just like monastic Orthodox is quite foreign to your typical American or European

It is similar with Boko Haram in Nigeria, most Nigerians do NOT want Sharia law, this is why groups like Al Shabab and Boko Haram not only attack Christians and secular government institutions, but common people on the street who equally resist radicalism.

Violence has hijacked the Muslim narrative today. Jihad in Islam up until the 20th century politicization of Islam after the decline of the Ottoman Empire and ascendancy of Euro-American hegemony was a spiritual concept of struggling through fasting and prayer. When the colonial tide was reversed, and many Muslims found themselves colonized rather then the colonizers (as they had been the four hundred years previously), the concept of Jihad and the mujihadeen quite literally radically changed. Prayer became violence. Me personally, I came from a very radicalized background, and it was Orthodox Christianity that taught me directly the value of prayer beads over pistols to solve conflict, let us pray that many Muslims continue to learn the same.

stay blessed,habte selassie

a major case of missing the point lol I would advise to read again what I wrote lol if I thought it was genuine that is. the missing half of my qoute makes me think otherwise so... lol

« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 04:49:57 PM by Hiwot »

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

I'm sorry, but when making claims about history the times and places are not "minor" facts. They matter. Good verifiable information can support a person's ideas while errors will not. Dates and places are some of the important facts that are needed to establish what truely happened when and where. They are part of the context that is necessary to understand the larger picture. Meaning no offense to you, but having a "macro perspective" of history sounds vague. If I were to make some claim about history of an event I would have to give some checkable information for other people to use to find out (if they wanted) that such a situation was True. Just because there was some idea that I liked doesn't mean that it is the truth.

I'm sorry Ebor, but what I meant, was that when it comes to history, I pay more attention to the lessonsthat can be learned and less about specific dates, places, ...etc. I believe our thinking process is different, and we place emphasis on different things. I suggest you read about left-brain vs right-brain thinking.... I know that I'm more of a right-brain thinker, so that's why I said "macro perspective".

Quote

I apologize for any unintended offense, but I know more of the subject than you seem to think that I do. And I disagree with your idea as to what brought the Golden Age to an end. In Spain/Al-Andaluz for example there was suppression of the thought and philosophy of other Muslims under the Almohad rulers. I suppose that one might say that that was a change in the "political system" but it wasn't along the lines that you described above. Here is the wiki link on the Almohad reforms though I can find other material on this if desired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_reformsWikipedia can be a good starting place but deeper understanding comes from the sources and cited materials.

Now I'm not denying it wasn't all peaceful in the early years. Muslims were being harmed by hypocritical Muslims all the time... remember the story of Karbala where Hussein (the prophet's grandson) and his community was struggling to find peace because they didn't go along with evil monarchs who wanted to use the religion as a political force. So just like there were problems in Spain, there were problems in the mideast.

But overall it was a peaceful time (golden age) and science/tech was advancing fast in that region. The reason why, is because the religion educated the general public what human rights are. To free slaves, to not kill female children, to be peaceful with others, to be generous, to not deceive one another in the marketplace...etc. Once freedom and human rights were recognized, then the region started to prosper. The prosperity ended when evil political changes happened, which restricted freedom in some way... that's when economic changes happened. This is what the devil does.... as the quran says 'he threatens you with poverty'. The devil took over and everything good faded... people let it happen when they didn't take the religion seriously.

Quote

Not properly credited? The constellations book that I had as a child stated (and it certainly is common knowledge in astronomy) that many star names are from Arabic. Algebra comes from then and mathematicians haven't tried to cover up the roots. However, Alchemy is not a purely Arabic word as it comes from the Greek "chemia" with an "al" added and the word then goes through Latin to Old French and then to English. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/alchemyWorking with materials and elements was not a new development from Persia.

May I ask if you recall materials you read that did not give the historical information or, since you say "a long time ago" how long ago that was and where?

Thank you for the list of people. I know of them and mentioned Avicenna, for example, in my earlier post. I have read various works on the period and culture including in the last year the book I mentioned No god But God by Reza Aslan who is originally from Iran. The book's sub-title is The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam and it can be found in hardback, paperback and in libraries.

I'm sure you know more about this topic than I do. But when I studied a subject like optics, I rarely find Al Hazen's name in the text..... you see only Newton (who did add a lot of original ideas...someone I admire), but the book should at least have a few sentences on Al Hazen.

Similar thing with Algebra/Trigonometry texts, you always see bios of European scientists like Euler, Gauss, Euclid, ...etc.... but no mention of the Muslim scholars.

Same thing with Robotic textbooks.... no mention of al-Jazari, who is really the father of robotics.

Should I not be noticing that even in Habte's narrative, jihad turned violent once Muslim hegemony was finally broken apart by force? (Not that it wasn't reconstituted in some perhaps even worse ways, but alas...)

This speaks, I think, to the first part of Hiwot's post that somehow got lost in Habte's quoting...

Not to rain on anyone's love parade or nothing, but we should know that the fatuhat al-Islamiya, as they call them, were offensive wars for the "opening" (that's what that word means) of the world to Islam. Were it not for violent conquest and subsequent hegemonic domination that continues to this very day in previously-Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Persia, there would not have been any empire to lose, and hence we might conjecture that jihad could not have turned violent in response to anyone else's having taken away Islam's right place in the world, as an ever-expanding, world-conquering empire. These wars began with Muhammad himself, irrespective of the challenges he faced in Arabia proper.

So I'm afraid I do not buy this partial definition of jihad. Would that were mostly peaceful, as it can be. I do not doubt the specific examples brought by Habte (all the Somalis I have met, for instance, have been very pragmatic and seemingly quite inwardly-focused), only that jihad as a thing has been "hijacked" in some way by those practicing violence. The Islamic conquests were violent. Read some history, folks. Primary source documents on all sides record that violence; the only difference is whether they see it as good or bad.

Why is it written in the Qur'an that Jesus' mother Mary was the daughter of Amram (Surah 3:35, Surah 66:12) and sister of Aaron (Surah 19:28)? Isn't it obvious that the author of the Qur'an accidentally assimilated the Miriam of the Old Testament (Daughter of Amram in 1 Chronicles 6:3; Sister of Aaron in Exodus 15:20) to Jesus' mother Miriam?

This is a very interesting point, and I'm going to do some more studying on it....

but remember, these surahs are poetic, and typically, these poems reveal many different stories, all of which are validyou just have to read them from different perspectives... to get the point

now if you're reading these verses, thinking about Mary the mother of Jesus, Amram is mentioned because she's from that linage..... most likely her father's last name was Amram

Mary actually descended from the tribe of Judah though. Thus, she was not a Levite and Amram was not her ancestor. More to the point, Surah 3:35 claims that Amram was Mary's immediate father (It's said that Amram's wife gave birth to Mary).

in the second case, Surah 19:28, it's clearly a play-on-word, if you read it carefully...... a man from her community was criticizing her for having Jesus, and telling her how surprised he was, that someone who comes from a very religious family, who's name is the same as Mariam, the sister of Aaron, why she would have such "a baby out of wedlock".

Again, Mary was not a Levite. She did not descend from a priestly family. The problem with this argument is that it disregards that Moses and Aaron's actual sister is mentioned in the Qur'an, but never named. Thus, the Qur'an talks of no other Miriam for a comparison. According to the author of the Qur'an, there was one Miriam in history and this Miriam, who was the daughter of Amram and sister of Aaron, was Jesus' mother. Finally, this kind of a usage is alien to Semitic culture. Nowhere were females called sisters of Aaron for a comparison. The actual term used is daughter of Aaron rather than sister of Aaron.

Does it really seem coincidental to you that Jesus' mother Miriam is designated in the Qur'an as BOTH the sister of Aaron and Amram's daughter? It looks like Miriam's father was accidentally named Amram in Surah 3:35 since in the earliest chapter (Surah 19) Mary was accidentally identified as the sister of Aaron. In other words, the confusion and blunder continued and developed.

Theophilos78, unfortunately, I'll need to study this topic in more details. So it'll take some time to give you a specific answer.

But as I said in my previous post, quranic surahs are poetic, and so they tend to contain verses that refer to several different stories..... it's just matter of seeing the verse from a certain angle.

On one level the verse may be literal, talking about Mary the mother of Jesus, another level it may be figurative and it's talking about Mariam-- something symbolic that happened in her life.

But regardless the case, I'm not sure how these names affect the whole story? Is there a problem if Mary&Jesus were decedents of both-- through a cousin marriage at some point?

Here is an article from the BBC in 06 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4581684.stm on a manuscript that is said to be the Quran of Uthman/Othman and that is located in Tashkent. It is so fragile that it is kept in a special case and people are not able to just read it. The report also says that due to the deterioration over the centuries of the deer skin on which it was written only about 1/3 of it, about 250 pages, still exists. There is a reference to another partial copy (five were said to have been made at the time, not just one) that is in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul.

This counters the claim that the "original" Quran is preserved in totality.

I think the most important thing that we should consider, is that there is uniformity in the text that all sects of Islam use. The Shias, Sunnis, ...etc. both use the same Quran, and they all place an emphasis on the original Arabic version.

But regardless the case, I'm not sure how these names affect the whole story? Is there a problem if Mary&Jesus were decedents of both-- through a cousin marriage at some point?

Descendents of whom? The Qur'an does not talk about Jesus' and Mary's ancestor, but of Mary's immediate father and Jesus' grandfather (Surah 3:35). The problem is how come Jesus' mother Mary is identified in the Qur'an as the Miriam in the Old Testament. This seems to be a gross historical blunder and assimilation.

I think the most important thing that we should consider, is that there is uniformity in the text that all sects of Islam use. The Shias, Sunnis, ...etc. both use the same Quran, and they all place an emphasis on the original Arabic version.

What if all the sects of Islam follow the same corrupted and incomplete version of the Qur'an? Would the agreement to use the same text change the fact that the text is no more perfect and original?

]Would you please explain a bit more on your idea of males and females being "unequal" mentally? [/b] Thank you in advance

Well, I don't know if you've read any books on human psychology, but we do indeed have different minds--it's not really debatable. Women are better at multitasking, while men are better at making calculation. Women tend to make decisions based on emotions while men tend to make them based on logic (faulty or not).

As to the physical, while in general the average adult male is taller and stronger than the average adult female, it is not applicable to all human beings across the board. It is not a "Law of the Universe" as it were.

As I was hinting to in a previous post......it is important to read the Quran, and study the religion by looking at things from a macro-perspective not micro. The religion encourages right-brain thinking..... learning intuitively, seeing things from a broader perspective.... ie. see things form the Creator's point of view.

Now of course there are some females that think like men and are physically bigger than men. But she can have a child, and men can't..... so if she gets married, it's best for her to take care of the young child... and have the men take care of the finances. I mean, the father can't really breastfeed the child.

Before our questions get too far out in left field, lets try to remember Constantinople and the Orthodox Christians there survived under Islam more peacefully than expected, especially considering the circumstances at the time.

Having grown up among Turks, the reason may be because (a) Ottomans were much more practical than the Arabs and (b) Turks are not quite Hyperdox of the Islamic world. Don't take me wrong, they were bad enough to the Christian populations,particularly after the 16th Century.

Before our questions get too far out in left field, lets try to remember Constantinople and the Orthodox Christians there survived under Islam more peacefully than expected, especially considering the circumstances at the time.

Before our questions get too far out in left field, lets try to remember Constantinople and the Orthodox Christians there survived under Islam more peacefully than expected, especially considering the circumstances at the time.

That's debatable.

It all depends on how you define "PEACEFUL".

Dhimmitude. My family lived it.

They would rather have been slaughtered into oblivion than submit to Islamic rule and the protection it provided for their survival? Interesting. Focus on what I am saying rather than what I am not saying.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christs!

Folks, can we kindly be a bit more mature? This thread is quickly devolving into a pity party and a stone throwing contest. Have Muslims killed Christians? Yes, duh. Have we killed Muslims? Yes, duh. Here is the real clincher, have Christians fought against and killed Christians? Yes, duh

How about we save those obvious discussions for more pertinent threads, our Muslim brother has been considerate enough to have open and honest discussions here, can't we keep that focus instead of falling into the blame game so much and talking about persecutions? There are a plethora of threads available on this forum to have those discussions, but if we keep that going here inevitably it will begin to get focused towards even the Muslim poster here.

Many times I hear Christians say, "Why don't Muslims speak out against violence or persecution of Christians?" They do. I will flip it, and ask, "How come we Christians can't speak out to other Christians about being myopic in discussions about Islam?"

We know there is a history of violence, persecution, and martyrdom, and we shouldn't disregard these tragedies, but as in all matters, we must always consider the settings, time, and place.

I have a question. I am not entirely certain of the official Muslim position, so I am only asking based off of personal experience and what I have heard. Anyway, according to many Muslims I have met, they claim that particular passages in the New Testament gospels are prophecies predicting the arrival of Muhammed, yet, these very same people also claim that the documents themselves were corrupted. Seems contradictory to me. How can you do that?

Yes most Muslims say that passages like Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to the prophet.

I am not a Dickens scholar, but I have read some of his works. That purported "quote" from him along with the others on the linked site are found in many sites supporting Islam. But there is no citation for it or for some of the others. I could be wrong but I can't think of how this "quote" would fit into any of his novels or shorter works. So it is possible that it is a mis-attribution or someone did not understand who really did write it or it could be completely made up and Dickens' name applied to it.

So if you can find a copy, it may have a more direct source on Dickens quote.

Quote

The campaign against and slaughter of Hussain and his followers was violent and tragic. It is an historic fact with a date and a place. Why would it need support from undocumented attributed quotes.

I am not trying to be difficult but claims need to be supported.

Ebor

You're right, these quotes weren't really necessary.....but I though they were interesting sidenotes, to encourage others to read about the story of Hussein, and see what really happened to the descendants of the Prophet in the early years of Islam.

While I have tried to read all of the responses & questions, I have not quite been able to do so COMPLETELY.

So if this was already covered in a different way, I apologize & please link me to your response.

I would love to know how in the world we can have different "traditions" of exegesis to what is perhaps the most important chapter of the Quran & the only one that is NAMED after Muhammad. See link to chapter below:

How in the world could anyone "mistake" this one? or exegete it as "oh he meant that spiritually". Sorry..I just don't buy it. Seems VERY clear to me. Thoughts?

From my study, the first surah (Al-Fatiha) is among the most important.

Feel free to ask me about any specific parts of Surah 47, whatever you disagree with.

Also, when it comes to these surahs, it's important to study the context and setting they were revealed. Some were revealed at times of war-- as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts:

The prophet made a peace treaty with a violent group, and that group broke that treaty and started attacking the early Muslim community. These verses were revealed, to educate the early Muslims that it's permissible to defend yourself and fight against those who are trying to kill you-- but also it said to have mercy on those who have a change of heart.

Also I encourage you watch this movie about the prophet.... it sheds light on what kind of struggle he was going through in the early years of Islam:

Yes, you mentioned this movie before & I watched, it. to be honest, it was not very helpful to me, because it did not help me understand the particular history behind this Surah. If you have any good sources that would help me uncover the history at the time of the writing of this particular Surah, I would be very grateful & would love to read them.

I do understand that historical context is important and that Muhamad waged many wars & battles between different peoples.

However: 1. I was under the impression that this particular surah was written during a time of peace (could be wrong about that).

2. for me one of the hardest verses to deal with is: (source 2 posts below)

Quote

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

Yes as I said in my other post, that verse was most likely revealed at times of war.

In the movie it showed how the early Muslims were being persecuted, and it reached to a point where they had no choice but to defend themselves and fight for freedom.

That verse in particular was to help some of the novice fighters to understand how to fight in the battle-zone. What to do, where to aim, ...etc. in order to gain victory.

I agree with you that true muslims do not believe in a heretical ruling structure.and that they will fight on the behalf of the community to prevent the ideology deemed heretical from taking over. they are justified nay obligated to do so.

btw, the sufi flavor makes your explanations much more palatable , I am sure you know.

Amen Amen! Excellent point my kind sister.

This is evidenced by the reality that most Somalis utterly reject Al Shabab's push towards Sharia, because in all actuality that degree of Islam is quite foreign to the typical Somali's experience, just like monastic Orthodox is quite foreign to your typical American or European

It is similar with Boko Haram in Nigeria, most Nigerians do NOT want Sharia law, this is why groups like Al Shabab and Boko Haram not only attack Christians and secular government institutions, but common people on the street who equally resist radicalism.

Violence has hijacked the Muslim narrative today. Jihad in Islam up until the 20th century politicization of Islam after the decline of the Ottoman Empire and ascendancy of Euro-American hegemony was a spiritual concept of struggling through fasting and prayer. When the colonial tide was reversed, and many Muslims found themselves colonized rather then the colonizers (as they had been the four hundred years previously), the concept of Jihad and the mujihadeen quite literally radically changed. Prayer became violence. Me personally, I came from a very radicalized background, and it was Orthodox Christianity that taught me directly the value of prayer beads over pistols to solve conflict, let us pray that many Muslims continue to learn the same.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I was Curious about what you mentioned about monastic Orthodox being foreign to us regular Orthodox, Greek american in my case, are you talking about Monks way of life?

Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“

I was Curious about what you mentioned about monastic Orthodox being foreign to us regular Orthodox, Greek american in my case, are you talking about Monks way of life?

Monastic life is an extreme, every Orthodox Christian is not obligated or even beneficial to live the Monastic life if they are not monks. Did you catch that I said typical American or European? Ask yourself, is the typical American or European even Orthodox Christians let alone monks??

Violence has hijacked the Muslim narrative today. Jihad in Islam up until the 20th century politicization of Islam after the decline of the Ottoman Empire and ascendancy of Euro-American hegemony was a spiritual concept of struggling through fasting and prayer. When the colonial tide was reversed, and many Muslims found themselves colonized rather then the colonizers (as they had been the four hundred years previously), the concept of Jihad and the mujihadeen quite literally radically changed. Prayer became violence. Me personally, I came from a very radicalized background, and it was Orthodox Christianity that taught me directly the value of prayer beads over pistols to solve conflict, let us pray that many Muslims continue to learn the same.

a major case of missing the point lol I would advise to read again what I wrote lol if I thought it was genuine that is. the missing half of my qoute makes me think otherwise so... lol

Heaven forbid we try to agree about something eh, even if I try? Whatever yo

Quote

those that fight against heretical ruling structure, are they fighting for religious freedom? for instance democracy as a rule of the people , can it be interprated as heresy thereby those who fight it are fighting for religious freedom which can only be realised for them when the supreme law of the land becomes Allah's law?

I didn't gloss over your first part, I must have misread your intentions, because my point was to explain that many Muslims do not necessarily want the supreme law of the land to be Allah's law, rather that is the premise of radical militants which are not fully supported by average Somalis or Nigerians.

I'm almost scared to ask, so what was this point I missed then?

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 10:17:49 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Koran could be refering to some eccentric form of Judaism. Or Christianity for that matter when it's talking about Trinity. Who knows what might have been out there during that time considering that even today World is filled with crazy religions.

Not possible because the verse talks about the Jews in general rather than about some unknown group of the Jews.

A case can be made that since Muhammed didn't know all of the Jews of the World and their various religious views "the Jews" refers to those jews he was aware of. He was (IIRC) just a illiterate salesman and not well versed in comparative religion.

I've heard that particular reasoning before. It seems a little odd to me, y'know, that the Qur'an is supposed to be the immutable and eternal word of God, literally spoken to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel, and yet would contain these very basic mistakes. It's almost like "Everything we can easily explain is GOD, but everything that might seem a little iffy...well, y'know, Muhammad was just a man/only talking about the Jews of his time/etc." Fine, fine...Muhammad didn't know, but wouldn't GOD know? Or are those verses somehow not from God? Maybe Muhammad and God had a bad connection that day...I mean, the revelations did come in a cave, after all...

Koran could be refering to some eccentric form of Judaism. Or Christianity for that matter when it's talking about Trinity. Who knows what might have been out there during that time considering that even today World is filled with crazy religions.

Not possible because the verse talks about the Jews in general rather than about some unknown group of the Jews.

A case can be made that since Muhammed didn't know all of the Jews of the World and their various religious views "the Jews" refers to those jews he was aware of. He was (IIRC) just a illiterate salesman and not well versed in comparative religion.

But Muhammed isn't supposed to be the author of the Koran. God is. If there are entirely human errors in the Koran, which was my point, as you suggest then you're agreeing with what Theophilos and I were talking about in the first place re. the misunderstandings of the Trinity and Judaism. I'd really like to see Fibonacci's answer to our posts as I'd like to understand how Muslims deal with this - to me it's the smoking gun that says that the Koran is not the direct word of God. So how do Muslims reconcile the details of the text with their beliefs as to the origin of the text? Or do some Muslims have a different view of the Koran, one where Muhammed is inspired rather than dictated to?

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

A case can be made that since Muhammed didn't know all of the Jews of the World and their various religious views "the Jews" refers to those jews he was aware of. He was (IIRC) just a illiterate salesman and not well versed in comparative religion.

Such a case cannot be made by Muslims since it would undermine their fundamental claims regarding the source of the Qur'an.

I've heard that particular reasoning before. It seems a little odd to me, y'know, that the Qur'an is supposed to be the immutable and eternal word of God, literally spoken to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel, and yet would contain these very basic mistakes.

God should have spoken to primitive Arabs about Jewish and Christian religious views that exist miles and miles away from their area and which they have never even thought of?

Anyway, also I would like to hear fibonacci's perspective on this. It could be true that I'm presenting too "low church" understanding of their Holy Book.

IMHO that's one of the flaws of their religion. Islam could be a nice little religion if they didn't have Muhammed and Quran.

I've heard that particular reasoning before. It seems a little odd to me, y'know, that the Qur'an is supposed to be the immutable and eternal word of God, literally spoken to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel, and yet would contain these very basic mistakes.

God should have spoken to primitive Arabs about Jewish and Christian religious views that exist miles and miles away from their area and which they have never even thought of?

But your assessment of the state of Arabia prior to Mohammed is wrong. There were Jews living in Arabia prior to Islam (as is clear from the Koran itself) and there were also Christian Arabic tribes (such as the Ghassanids who were Byzantine allies against the Sassanids). These weren't miles away, they were part and parcel of the religious makeup of pre-Islamic Arabia. Everyone wasn't pagan. In addition they had trading routes to places like Egypt and Ethiopia which contained populations of both Jews and Christians. To believe that your 'primitive Arabs' had no familiarity at all with normal Christians and Jews, but only some way out sects now lost to history, is to believe in a fiction.

James

« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 06:03:38 AM by jmbejdl »

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

But your assessment of the state of Arabia prior to Mohammed is wrong. There were Jews living in Arabia prior to Islam (as is clear from the Koran itself) and there were also Christian Arabic tribes (such as the Ghassanids who were Byzantine allies against the Sassanids). These weren't miles away, they were part and parcel of the religious makeup of pre-Islamic Arabia. Everyone wasn't pagan. In addition they had trading routes to places like Egypt and Ethiopia which contained populations of both Jews and Christians. To believe that your 'primitive Arabs' had no familiarity at all with normal Christians and Jews, but only some way out sects now lost to history, is to believe in a fiction.

Thank you for correction. My explanation was only reasonable explanation I could think of but it seems indeed to be incorrect. I wonder if those verses were some common misconception of that time about Judaism. It would be fairly awkward for Muslims but at least it would provide reasonable explanation to why an Earth there are that kind of verses in Quran.

It is also not by coincidence that the Jews were accused of identifying Ezra as the Son of God only in this latest chapter of the Qur'an. The parallelism established between Christians and Jews aims to designate BOTH these religious communities as pagans/polytheists (verse 30). More, both Jews and Christians are (falsely) accused of worshipping their rabbis and priests/monks in verse 31. These verses come right after verse 29, which commands Muslims to attack the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and force them to conversion to Islam. Thus, it will not be wrong to say that the author of the Qur'an first ordered jihad on Jews and Christians in verse 29 and then formulated verses 30-31 and designated both Jews and Christians as pagans having many lords/gods in order to justify a religious war on them.

I've heard that particular reasoning before. It seems a little odd to me, y'know, that the Qur'an is supposed to be the immutable and eternal word of God, literally spoken to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel, and yet would contain these very basic mistakes.

God should have spoken to primitive Arabs about Jewish and Christian religious views that exist miles and miles away from their area and which they have never even thought of?

Anyway, also I would like to hear fibonacci's perspective on this. It could be true that I'm presenting too "low church" understanding of their Holy Book.

IMHO that's one of the flaws of their religion. Islam could be a nice little religion if they didn't have Muhammed and Quran.

To supplement James' post, you should read J. Spencer Tremingham's "Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times", or look into the works of Sydney H. Griffith or Robert Hoyland, which deal with many of the same issues. You'll find that the Islamic idea of the pre-Islamic times being times of ignorance is not based on the reality of the situation on the ground, but is an ideologically-motivated claim to buttress the claims of Islam.